Why Sheryl Sandberg’s Paul Ryan Plug Makes Sense

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg is under fire from reporters and Web commenters for saying a positive thing about Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. How dare she, balk critics, award Ryan her “Lean In Award of the day,” praising the front-runner for the speaker of the House post for "saying he worries how becoming House Speaker would affect his children," after he told reporters, “I cannot and will not give up my family time” with his three children?

Sandberg identified his comments as classic #LeanIn material and shouted them out in a Facebook post as such: “We need work to work for parents—and having leaders who weigh responsibilities as fathers as much as their responsibilities to their jobs shows all of us what is possible.”

Cue the outrage. Gawker’s headline, “Sheryl Sandberg Gives Paul Ryan, Enemy of Women, the ‘Lean In Award of the Day,’ ” sums it up: Both Ryan’s statement and Sandberg’s plug were slammed as hypocritical. Sandberg is the mother of the Lean In movement; Ryan notably voted against the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, which would have made federal government employees eligible for four weeks of paid family leave. (They currently get no paid leave.) It’s also noted that Ryan’s priority on his own family hasn’t always extended to low-income families, as he’s proposed spending cuts that would affect childcare subsidies.

Sandberg and Ryan are strange bedfellows, absolutely. But let’s not underestimate Sandberg, who is no doubt well aware of Ryan’s voting record. In fact, his lack of support could be the precise reason why she singled him out. It may be a long shot, but now that Ryan is in contention to be third in line for the presidency and the political issue of family leave may become more personal to him, maybe—just maybe—he’ll begin to soften on the issue. (See: Dick Cheney’s breaking from much of his party’s stance on same-sex marriage, in light of his daughter Mary, who is gay.) “This may be a moment for Ryan to reconsider his historical hard line,” one commenter on Sandberg’s post mused. “It’s always different when it’s personal.”

But even if Ryan doesn’t budge, Sandberg isn’t endorsing his political policies; she’s endorsing him as a high-profile man who is publicly prioritizing his family alongside his career. Sadly, this happens so rarely, it’s actually news when it does. Sandberg is wise to recognize it as a buzz-worthy moment, and one that may empower more men to admit that they, too, aren’t willing to pour themselves into work at the expense of time with their families.

Men consistently tell me that leaders in their office inform their behavior on work and family, that they take as much family leave when their children are born as the other men in their office had, or that they are willing to tell their boss they’re staying home with a sick child, or not stay home with a sick child at all, based on what the other guys in their office do. It can’t be lost on Sandberg that perhaps Ryan, as a party leader, can set a new standard for his colleagues. Whether or not they like each other personally or agree with each other politically, Sandberg and Ryan are leaning in together.